Hello,
I have disassembled my program produced by g++ 4.0.0
and I see a very strange behaviour -- the compiler doesn't
generate cmov-s (-O3 -march=pentium3). G++ 3.4 generates
them. So, how can I reactivate cmov-s in the newest version
of the compiler? fif-conversion doesn't work...
Best rega
On Friday 19 August 2005 20:26, Jiang Long wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I 'd like to dig into gcc internals, and would like to compile it with -g.
>
> I can't find any document on how to do that? I tried
>
> make BOOT_CFLAGS=-g CFLAGS=-g,
>
> but it still will add '-O2' later on.
>
> Any documentation on ho
If you are objective is to debug gcc, then all the necessary setup is
already done...Check this documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC.
dz
On 8/20/05, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 19 August 2005 20:26, Jiang Long wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I 'd like
On Friday, August 19, 2005, at 04:26 PM, Jiang Long wrote:
I 'd like to dig into gcc internals, and would like to compile it with
-g.
cd /gcc && make cc1 is another way to do it.
Hi,
For this simple loop, I get the following distance and direction vector
Distance {1,-1)
Direction (2,0)
for(J = 1; J <= N-1; J++)
for(I = 1; I <= N-1; I++)
{
XX = X[I+1][J];
XY = X[I][J+1];
}
Can some body explain why thats so ?
thanks
Shreyas
Hi,
I am trying to implement a prototype pass that instruments a function
to check for safe memory accesses. As a starting point I looked at
mudflap1 pass, in tree-mudflap.c and decided that I should write a
dummy pass ( very simple, but similar to mudflap) that instruments the
code to count the n
Sorry, my mistake. I initialized it with a value, and it appeared in
the .data. :)
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to implement a prototype pass that instruments a function
> to check for safe memory accesses. As a starting point I looked at
> mudflap1 pass, in tree-mudflap.c and decided that I should wr
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:34:35PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> But for general IPA working on the cgraph + GIMPLE level, as is what is
> happening here, I think we really need to do something about static
> variable initializers so they are in GIMPLE.
No. How could that possibly be? We can't e
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 19:15 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:34:35PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > But for general IPA working on the cgraph + GIMPLE level, as is what is
> > happening here, I think we really need to do something about static
> > variable initializers
Dear Sirs,
1. bootstrapping the gcc 4.0.1 under Sparc/Solaris I found that the
building in "fixincludes" uses the gcc (with no PATH specification)
instead of the xgcc build by the last stage. It may crash, it happens on
my environment, because I've migrated from Solaris 9 to Solaris 10 where
10 matches
Mail list logo
